Recall suffers from collaboration: Joint recall effects of friendship and task complexity
Abstract
Collaborative recall in episodic memory tasks was investigated in two experiments. The experiments were explicitly designed to investigate how the interaction between two subjects influences group productivity. Subjects were requested to recall twice, first individually, and second, in different subject constellations (individually, or in dyads, as friends or non‐friends). Experiment 1 employed free recall of words and story recall. In Experiment 2, a video‐taped lecture on child development was recalled. The observed score at the second recall (Recall 2) was compared with the nominal predicted score, based on the initial recall. The results of the experiments are summarized and discussed in four clusters: (1) observed productivity for dyads never reached their predicted potential; (2) the negative effects of collaborative recall can be reduced; (3) friends rather than non‐friends, and complex rather than simple tasks, reduce the loss in productivity; and (4) the data also suggest that encoding alone is superior to collaborative encoding.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Not all studies have found positive effects for collaboration.
“It must be noted, however, that not all studies have found positive effects for collaboration (e.g., Andersson and Rönnberg 1995;Kirschner et al. 2009c;Meudell et al. 1992).”
From Making the Black Box of Collaborative Learning Transparent: Combining Process-Oriented and Cognitive Load Approaches (2010) · cites this paper as Andersson and Rönnberg 1995
Effect-oriented research focuses on the direct relationship between group composition and students' individual posttest performance, whereas process-oriented research also takes the collaborative process into account.
“Effect-oriented research that investigates these relationships focuses on the direct relationship between, for example, group composition and students' individual performance on a posttest (see, for example, Andersson and Rönnberg 1995;Buchs and Butera 2009), whereas process-oriented research also takes the collaborative process into account (for example, Denessen et al. 2008;Webb et al. 1998).”
From Making the Black Box of Collaborative Learning Transparent: Combining Process-Oriented and Cognitive Load Approaches (2010) · cites this paper as Andersson and Rönnberg 1995
Individual learning is superior to group learning for relatively simple recall tasks.
“These findings are consistent with previous research on group versus individual learning which showed that group learning is superior to individual learning for relatively complex problem-solving tasks (Laughlin et al. 2002;Laughlin et al. 2006) and that individual learning is superior to group learning for relatively simple recall tasks (e.g., Andersson and Rönnberg 1995;Meudell et al. 1992;Weld”
From Making the Black Box of Collaborative Learning Transparent: Combining Process-Oriented and Cognitive Load Approaches (2010) · cites this paper as Andersson and Rönnberg 1995
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 187
- Authors
- Andersson, J., & Rönnberg, J.
- Affiliations
- Linköping University (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Andersson, Jan
- ORCID
- Andersson, Jan
- Venue
- Applied Cognitive Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-06
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 199-211
- ISSN
- 0888-4080 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0720
- OpenAlex
- W2062752664
- Cited by
- 187
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 0.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Applied Cognitive Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- collaborative recall, episodic memory, friendship, task complexity, dyads, free recall, story recall, encoding, team productivity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
